Material contradictions

2020 CLCN 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)Agreement to sellMaterial contradictionsWithholding best evidenceNon-production of Register of Stamp VendorEffectPlaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contractTrial Court and appellate court concurrently decreed the suit of plaintiffValidityPlaintiff and marginal witnesses had failed to disclose the date of transaction

Plaintiff, contrary to his plaint, deposed that defendant after settling oral contract had fled away, where on having been approached she executed the agreement

Plaintiff had disclosed in his statement that transaction was struck at court premises of "H", but one of the marginal witnesses had stated that sale was settled at place "BK"

Disparity with regard to venue among witnesses could neither be treated as minor contradiction nor it could be lightly ignored

Plaintiff and an attesting witness had stated during cross-examination that the day when stamp paper was purchased, not only advance amount was paid rather contract was also written then and there

Agreement to sell revealed that stamp paper was issued by the Stamp Vendor, three days prior to the date of its drafting

One of the marginal witnesses had admitted that bargain was settled by the plaintiff before their arrival

Marginal witnesses were not residents of the locality

CNIC numbers of the plaintiff and marginal witnesses were not entered either by the Scribe or by the Stamp Vendor

Plaintiff had not disclosed as to who identified the defendant before the Vendor and the Scribe

Register of Stamp Vendor had not been produced rather it was deliberately withheld, as such adverse inference had to be drawn that had the same been examined that would have proved the allegations of defendant

Verdicts of courts below, being outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record, were illegal, unlawful and coram non judice, which could not be sustained in the eyes of law

Civil revision was allowed, judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside, in circumstances.

2014 SCMR 852 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Suit for pre-emptionContradiction between statements of pre-emptor and his witnessMaterial contradictionsScope

Pre-emptor in his deposition stated that he was sitting with his family members in the court yard of his house when he was informed about the alleged sale of suit property by his witness, whereas said witness in his deposition stated that he informed the pre-emptor about the alleged sale when he was sitting alone in his room

Held, such contradiction could not be termed as a material contradiction, which could have a bearing on the issue of making of Talbs

Factum of intimating the pre-emptor by the witness was not in dispute in regard to date, place and time

Appeal was allowed accordingly.